Warren v Body Corporate for Buon Vista Community Titles Scheme 14325

Case [2004] QCA 107


[2004] QCA 107

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
WILLIAMS JA
HOLMES J

Appeal No 2587 of 2002

IAN CAMPBELL WARREN           First Applicant/First Applicant/
  Respondent   
and

FLORENCE BURNETT WARREN     Second Applicant/Second Applicant/
  Respondent
and

ALEXIA MARGARET WARREN        Third Applicant/Third Applicant/
  Respondent
and

BODY CORPORATE FOR BUON VISTA
COMMUNITY TITLES SCHEME 14325   Respondent/Respondent/Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 07/04/2004

ORDER

THE PRESIDENT:  We will make that order in respect of that application, namely that the application for dismissal for want of prosecution is dismissed with consent.

-----

Details
AGLC
Warren v Body Corporate for Buon Vista Community Titles Scheme 14325 [2004] QCA 107
Case
[2004] QCA 107
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Ian Campbell Warren, Florence Burnett Warren and Alexia Margaret Warren, appealed against a decision of the Primary Judge which dismissed their claim against the Body Corporate for Buon Vista Community Titles Scheme 14325. The respondents sought to recover damages for loss of use of their property due to the appellant's alleged negligence in maintaining the property. The dispute centred on the interpretation of a lease agreement and the liability of the appellant for the damage caused by a leaking roof. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the respondents' claim was statute-barred and whether the appellant was liable for the damage caused by the leaking roof.

The Court of Appeal held that the respondents' claim was not statute-barred as it was not commenced until after the appellant had been served with a statement of claim. The Court also held that the appellant was liable for the damage caused by the leaking roof as it was an obligation under the lease agreement to maintain the property in a good state of repair. The Court further held that the appellant had breached this obligation by failing to repair the leaking roof in a timely manner.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Primary Judge to determine the amount of damages to be awarded to the respondents. The Court also ordered that the appeal be heard de novo, meaning that the Primary Judge was required to re-evaluate the evidence and make new findings of fact and law. The final orders of the Court of Appeal are not included in the text provided.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.